TOWN OF SHARON

PLANNING BOARD

 

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.

 

                   PRESENT:   REGINA MANISCALCO, CHAIR

                                      WAYNE BRADLEY, CLERK

                                      ARNOLD COHEN

                                      PAUL LAUENSTEIN

                                      PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER

 

Business Transacted:

 

I.                Meeting called to order. 

 

FORM A PLANS

None.

 

SIGN REVIEW

3 Chestnut Street, M. & D. Blackman, applicants.  The proposed sign would be 8’ x 1.5’.  It was of a black background with gold text, made of medium density fiberboard.  The applicant was also proposing a second directional sign to be placed on the side of the building facing South Main Street, same colors but 4’ x 6”.

 

The Board wasn’t sure the second directional sign was allowed under the sign by-law, as the regulations stated that a directional sign had to be on a corner lot.  Although this building was visible from South Main Street, it was not on the corner, as there was a Town-owned parking lot between the building and South Main Street.  Mr. Bradley indicated that he did not have a problem with the second sign, as it was consistent with the objectives for the Town Center to help and promote businesses there.  Mr. Cohen said that  allowing the second sign might create a precedent of making exceptions to the requirements of the by-law. 

                  

                                                          ____________________________

                                                                        Administrative Assistant

 

Planning Board Minutes                       Page Two                             October 5, 2005

 

Mr. Cohen further explained that the Board shouldn’t arbitrarily approve signs when you have specific regulations.  He didn’t think the Board should allow the directional sign. 

 

Mr. Blackman explained that the other tenants of that building already had directional signs there, and that was the reason he was placing one there also.  The Board indicated that those signs may never have been approved by the Board and the Board may have to look into that issue.  Ms. Maniscalco said that since there were already signs there, Mr. Blackman should not be penalized for acting within the intent of the Rules and Regulations.  She thought the directional signs were important for economic development and would want people to know what is on the other side of the parking lot.  So while she agrees with Mr. Cohen, the other signs are there and she doesn’t think the Board should punish Mr. Blackman and not allow the directional sign. 

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked the Board what they thought of the other directional signs that were already there, possibly in violation of the regulation.  If put to a vote, would the Board members vote to have them removed?   Mr. Cohen answered that it is up to the Building Inspector to enforce the sign regulations.

 

Since the property is just across the street from the Town Offices where the Planning Board meeting is held, the Board took a “field trip” to inspect these signs.

 

Ms. Maniscalco agreed that the Board should check to see if the other signs were ever allowed or were they in violation of the regulations.  However, she also pointed out that there is precedent in the Town to have two signs – one sign on the building and one directional sign, either on a corner or on a marquee.  However, to encourage more business in Sharon, the Board should give business owners the opportunity to advertise on two streets in some way, if there is exposure to two streets.

 

 

Planning Board Minutes                     Page Three                            October 5, 2005

 

Mr. Lauenstein then moved to approve only the sign on the front of the building as described above.  Seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to defer the vote on the sign on the South Main Street side of the building pending further review of the history of the other signs on the building.  Seconded by Mr. Lauenstein.  Voted:  Three in favor, one opposed (Ms. Maniscalco).

 

II.            PUBLIC HEARING RE: BOARD OF HEALTH PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES – MUOD AND CSD

 

Mr. Bradley read the legal advertisement to open the public hearing.  Board of Health member, Ms. Peck, came in to discuss these changes with the Board.  She informed the Planning Board (“PB”) that the Board of Health (“B/H”) had already held their public hearing on this matter on September 25th.

 

Ms. Peck explained that the intent of both of the suggested changes was to protect the environment.  The B/H felt that the current language was not strong enough and the proposed changes gave both the B/H and the Conservation Commission more power to deal with environmental issues.   As written, environmental concerns were implicit, but these changes aim at making them explicit. 

 

Mr. Cohen stated that there are three possible routes for a developer to take:  He can build a conventional subdivision, a CSD or a 40B.  The main difference between the CSD and the conventional subdivision is that the CSD requires a Special Permit that gives the PB authority to deny it, which the PB cannot do under a conventional subdivision if the developer meets the Rules and Regulations.  Mr. Cohen opined that the CSD was written to encourage conservation of open space, and it is a better option than a conventional subdivision.  If a developer feels it is too burdensome and decides to go the conventional route, none of these changes would apply.  It is the 40B’s that increase the traffic and pollution and not the CSD.  Mr. O’Cain agreed, adding that if you make the CSD too restrictive, why would a developer chose that over a 40B.

 

Planning Board Minutes                          Page Four                            October 5, 2005

 

Ms. Peck explained that because of problems brought about by the increased density allowed under a CSD, there will also be other environmental problems caused by the CSD that would not be caused by a conventional subdivision.  These proposed changes ask both the Town and the applicant under the CSD and MUOD to consider the environmental issues they may be creating.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked what would these changes do to avoid what happened at Hunter’s Ridge?  Ms. Peck answered that it would allow the Boards to have broader conversations with the applicants to ask more questions and provide the ability to mitigate additional environmental impacts.

 

Ms. Peck then reviewed the proposed changes in both the CSD and MUOD with the Board.  When done, Ms. Maniscalco thanked Ms. Peck for coming in and discussing these matters with the Board.

 

Mr. Bradley noted that these changes would not necessarily have had a direct impact on the Hunter’s Ridge subdivision, but that every submission is different and these changes may well be significant to future submissions.  He further added that enforcement of the existing language with respect to the preservation of the buffer would have alleviated much of the objection.  Mr. Bradley then suggested that stiffening up the language with respect to buffers would prevent future mistakes.

 

Mr. Bradley read passages from the by-laws that he believed, if they had been more strictly enforced by the Planning Board in approving Hunter’s Ridge, would have alleviated some of these issues.  Ms. Maniscalco reminded Mr. Bradley that the question was about current Board of Health by-law changes and that comments regarding previous Planning Board approvals was not germaine to that discussion.

 

Mr. Lauenstein moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.

 

 

 

Planning Board Minutes                       Page Five                            October 5, 2005

 

III.       OTHER BUSINESS

 

---Hunter’s Ridge.  Mr. Bradley recused himself from this part of the meeting.  Mr. Cohen moved to go into Executive Session to discuss the litigation of this matter, seconded by Mr. Lauenstein and unanimously voted.

 

IV.           There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.